Abstract
Objective To review and critically appraise published and preprint reports of models that aim to predict either (i) presence of existing COVID-19 infection, (ii) future complications in individuals already diagnosed with COVID-19, or (iii) models to identify individuals at high risk for COVID-19 in the general population.
Design Rapid systematic review and critical appraisal of prediction models for diagnosis or prognosis of COVID-19 infection.
Data sources PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, Arxiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv until 24th March 2020.
Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable COVID-19 related prediction model. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full text.
Data extraction Data from included studies were extracted independently by at least two authors based on the CHARMS checklist, and risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST. Data were extracted on various domains including the participants, predictors, outcomes, data analysis, and prediction model performance.
Results 2696 titles were screened. Of these, 27 studies describing 31 prediction models were included for data extraction and critical appraisal. We identified three models to predict hospital admission from pneumonia and other events (as a proxy for covid-19 pneumonia) in the general population; 18 diagnostic models to detect COVID-19 infection in symptomatic individuals (13 of which were machine learning utilising computed tomography (CT) results); and ten prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to a severe state, or length of hospital stay. Only one of these studies used data on COVID-19 cases outside of China. Most reported predictors of presence of COVID-19 in suspected patients included age, body temperature, and signs and symptoms. Most reported predictors of severe prognosis in infected patients included age, sex, features derived from CT, C-reactive protein, lactic dehydrogenase, and lymphocyte count.
Estimated C-index estimates for the prediction models ranged from 0.73 to 0.81 in those for the general population (reported for all 3 general population models), from 0.81 to > 0.99 in those for diagnosis (reported for 13 of the 18 diagnostic models), and from 0.85 to 0.98 in those for prognosis (reported for 6 of the 10 prognostic models). All studies were rated at high risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, and poor statistical analysis, including high risk of model overfitting. Reporting quality varied substantially between studies. A description of the study population and intended use of the models was absent in almost all reports, and calibration of predictions was rarely assessed.
Conclusion COVID-19 related prediction models are quickly entering the academic literature, to support medical decision making at a time where this is urgently needed. Our review indicates proposed models are poorly reported and at high risk of bias. Thus, their reported performance is likely optimistic and using them to support medical decision making is not advised. We call for immediate sharing of the individual participant data from COVID-19 studies to support collaborative efforts in building more rigorously developed prediction models and validating (evaluating) existing models. The aforementioned predictors identified in multiple included studies could be considered as candidate predictors for new models. We also stress the need to follow methodological guidance when developing and validating prediction models, as unreliable predictions may cause more harm than benefit when used to guide clinical decisions. Finally, studies should adhere to the TRIPOD statement to facilitate validating, appraising, advocating and clinically using the reported models.
Systematic review registration protocol osf.io/ehc47/, registration: osf.io/wy245
What is already known on this topic
- The sharp recent increase in COVID-19 infections has put a strain on healthcare systems worldwide, necessitating efficient early detection, diagnosis of patients suspected of the infection and prognostication of COVID-19 confirmed cases.
- Viral nucleic acid testing and chest CT are standard methods for diagnosing COVID-19, but are time-consuming.
- Earlier reports suggest that the elderly, patients with comorbidity (COPD, cardiovascular disease, hypertension), and patients presenting with dyspnoea are vulnerable to more severe morbidity and mortality after COVID-19 infection.
What this study adds
- We identified three models to predict hospital admission from pneumonia and other events (as a proxy for COVID-19 pneumonia) in the general population.
- We identified 18 diagnostic models for COVID-19 detection in symptomatic patients.
- 13 of these were machine learning models based on CT images.
- We identified ten prognostic models for COVID-19 infected patients, of which six aimed to predict mortality risk in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients, two aimed to predict progression to a severe or critical state, and two aimed to predict a hospital stay of more than 10 days from admission.
- Included studies were poorly reported compromising their subsequent appraisal, and recommendation for use in daily practice. All studies were appraised at high risk of bias, raising concern that the models may be flawed and perform poorly when applied in practice, such that their predictions may be unreliable.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
The review was publicly registered at osf.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
LW is a post-doctoral fellow of Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO). BVC received support from FWO (grant G0B4716N) and Internal Funds KU Leuven (grant C24/15/037). TD acknowledges financial support from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (Grant Numbers: 91617050). KGMM gratefully acknowledges financial support from Cochrane Collaboration (SMF 2018). KIES is funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. GSC was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, and Cancer Research UK (programme grant: C49297/A27294). The funders played no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or reporting. The guarantors had full access to all the data in the study, take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis, and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Extracted data is partially reported in Tables 1-2 and Supplementary Tables 1-2. The original manuscripts are published open access (links provided in the reference list). The protocol for this systematic review was registered on OSF and publicly available(osf.io/ehc47/).
